2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-30-2008 

# U SA v . C olumn a-Rome ro P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4279

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . C o lumn a -Rome r o " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 30. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/30Th e Ho n o r a b l e S a n d r a Da yO’ Co n n o r , Re t i r e d As s o c i a t e J u s t i c e o f th e S u p r e me * C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4279

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DE M E T RI O C OL UM NA- RO M E RO , A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 07- cr - 00239 ( H onor abl e J uan R . Sanchez ) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember20, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge , a n d O ’C O N N O R , R et i r ed Ass oci at e Jus t i ce * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed D ece m ber30, 2008 )

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTA tthe pl ea he ar i ng, C ol um na- R om er o r es erved the r i ghtt o chal l enge the i m pos i t i on 1 of a s ent ence under8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) , bas ed upon a pr i orconvi ct i on of an a ggr avat ed fel ony . C ol um na- R om er o had pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a t t empt ed r obberyi n N ew Y o rk . T h e P re se n ten c e In v e stig a tio n R e p o rt f a c to re d th is p rio r c o n v ictio n in to its cal cul at i ons . C ol um na- R om er o’ s s ent enci ng m emora ndum att es t ed t o the convi ct i on, and hi s couns el acknow l edged i tatthe s ent enci ng hear i ng. 2 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . D efe ndantD emet r i o C ol um na- R om er o w as s ent ence d t o 41 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent under8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . H e appe al s thi s s ent ence as unr eas onabl e and c o n tr a ry to h is F if

th a n d S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . W e d is a g re e , a n d w ill a f f ir m . I. O n Ju ly9 , 2 0 0 7 , C o lu m n a -R o m e ro , a c iti z e n o f M e x ico , p lea d e d g u iltyto a sin g le countof r eentr yaft erdeport at i on i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) . T her e w as no pl ea 1 agr eement . B as ed on C ol um na- R om er o’ s offe ns e l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egory , t he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) cal cul at ed an a dvi s orySent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of 41–51 m onths . N ei therpartyobj ect ed t o the PSR . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a sen tenc ing h ea ri n g o n O ctob er 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . P ri o r t o this he aring , C o lum n a-R o m ero su b m itt e d a se n ten c in g m e m o ra n d u m re q u e stin g a d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e , b a se d b o th o n h is p e rso n a l circ u m sta n c e s a n d o n th e f a c t th a t h e w a s a rre ste d in a d istric t th a t lac k e d a f a sttr ack pr ogr am for ha ndl i ng offe ns es s uch as hi s . H ad thi s fas t - tr ack pr ogr am been avai l abl e, C ol um na- R om er o as s ert ed, he w oul d have pa r t i ci pat ed i n i tand r ece i ved a l ow ers ent ence . T hi s cr eat ed a di s par i tyi n s ent enci ng tr eatm entthats uppor t ed a va r i anceT h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate 2 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s s ent enci ng deci s i on forabus e of di s cr et i on, t o ens ur e thatthe courtcomm i t t ed no s ig n if ic a n t p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r a n d th a t th e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . See U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7

– 1 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 3 f ro m th e P S R ’s a d v ise d ra n g e . C o lu m n a -R o m e ro re itera ted th e se a rg u m e n ts a t h is s ent enci ng hear i ng. H avi ng hear d fr om C ol um na- R om er o and the G overnm ent , and havi ng cons i der ed the PSR and the s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i ons of the Pr obat i on D ep artm en t and the G o v ern m en t, the D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that “a ll the e v iden ce b ef o re [i t ] s uppor t s a r eas onabl e s ent ence t o be i m pos ed w i thi n the gui del i ne r ange. ” A ccordi ng l y , the co urti m po sed a sentence of 4 1 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent, 3 y ears ’ su p e rv ise d re lea se , an d a $ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t (w h ich w a s w a iv e d ). T h is tim e ly appea l fol l ow ed. 2 II. C o lum n a-R o m ero ’s firstco n tention o n ap p ea l i s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt m isun d erstoo d the e x tent o f it s sen tenc ing au tho ri tyw h en itd en ied h is r eq u est fo r a dow nw ar d var i ance bas ed on the abs ence of a f as t - tr ack pr ogr am i n the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. A ccor di ng t o C ol um na- R om er o, the courterr ed i n tw o r es pect s : by decl i ni ng t o fi nd that , under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 6) , the abs ence of a f as t - tr ack pr ogr am c re a ted a n “ u n w a rra n ted se n ten c e d isp a rit[y]” b e tw e e n h im se lf a n d o th e r “ d e f

e n d a n ts w ith sim ilar r e c o rd s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u iltyo f

sim ilar c o n d u c t”; a n d b yf a ili n g to a c c o u n t f o r t h e a b s e n c e o f

th is p ro g ra m in its a n a lysis o f th e o th e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs .4

T hes e err or s , C ol um na- R om er o cont ends , demonstr at e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ttr eat ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes as m andat oryr atherthan advi s oryi n vi ol at i on of U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , ther ebyr ender i ng hi s s ent ence pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tr ecogni zed, thi s m att eri s governed byourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ar gas , 4 7 7 F .3 d 9 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . deni ed , 12 8 S . C t . 19 9 (200 7). V argas, l i ke C ol um na- R om er o, w as s ent ence d under§ 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . H e cont ended the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have c ons i der ed the di s par i tybetw een f as t - tr ack a nd non- fas t - tr ack di s tr i ct s i n fas hi oni ng hi s s ent ence . W e s ur vey ed ours i s t erci r cui t s and hel d, as “the S e c o n d a n d F o u rth th ro u g h E lev e n th C irc u its” h a d , “th a t a d istric t co u rt’s r e f u sa l to adj us ta s ent ence t o compensa t e forthe abs ence of a f as t - tr ack pr ogr am does notm ake a s ent ence unr eas onabl e. ” I d. at99. W e found that , s i nce Congre s s had author i zed the s c h e m e f o r c re a tin g f

a s t- tr a c k d is tr ic ts , s ee P R O T E C T A c t, P u b . L . N o . 1 0 8 -2 1 , § 401( m ) ( 2) ( B ) , 117 St at . 650, 675 ( 2003) , the s ent ence di s par i t i es thatm ayr es ul tfr om t he im p le m e n ta tio n o f

th a t s c h e m e c o u ld n o t b e “ u n w a rr a n te d ” u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ). See V ar gas , 477 F. 3d at100. Fur therm or e, w e not ed that , t o pr ove s uch an “ unw arr ant ed di s par i ty , ” “the bur den [i s ] on the def endantt o demonstr at e s i m i l ar i tybys how i ng that otherdefe ndant s ’ ‘ ci r cumst ance s exac t l ypar al l el ed’ hi s . ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. C har l es , 467 F. 3d 828, 833 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . W e found “ [t ] her e has been no s uch s how i ng her e, and a c our ts houl d notcons i ders ent ence s i m pos ed on def endant s i n ot her cas es i n the abs ence of s uch a s how i ng bya party . ” I d. A ddi t i onal l y , w e poi nt ed outt hat5

“[a ] courts houl d notcr eat e i t s ow n fas t - tr ack pr ogr am or s ubs t i tut e i t s ow n s ent enci ng gui del i nes forthos e of the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, ” as “the es t abl i s hm entof fa s t - tr ack pr ogr ams i s a mat t erl eftt o C ongr es s and the A t t orneyG ener al , and the r evi ew of nat i onal se n ten c in g p ra c tice s a n d f o rm u latio n o f

a d v iso ryse n ten c in g g u id e lin e s is a m a tter le f t to the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” I d. L as t l y , w e conc l uded that“eve n i f w e w er e t o fi nd t hat V a rg a s h a d sh o w n th a t f a st-tra c k p ro g ra m s c re a ted a n u n w a rra n ted d isp a rityw ith sim ilarlysitu a ted d e f

e n d a n ts u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ), . . . the D istric t C o u rt e x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n b yc o n sid e rin g th e re lev a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs. T h is e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n is f u rth e r e v id e n c e th a t V a rg a s’ s e n ten c e w a s re a so n a b le, e v e n in lig h t o f a n yd isp a rity cr eat ed byfas t - tr ack pr ogr ams. ” I d. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr el i ed on V ar gas i n r ej ect i ng C ol um na- R om er o’ s fas t - tr ack co n tention . U n d er V

ar gas , itf o u n d , “th e b u rd e n is u p o n th e d e f e n d a n t to d e m o n stra te s i m i l ar i tybys how i ng the otherdefe ndant s ’ ci r cumst ance s w er e exa ct l ypar al l el . ” F u rth e rm o re , “[ a ]s a trial ju d g e , I sh o u ld n o t cr e a te— o r a trial c o u rt— c a n n o t cr e a te its ow n fas t - tr ack pr ogr am or s ubs t i tut e i t s ow n s ent enci ng gui del i nes forthos e of the S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n .” A n d las tly , “[ t]h e T h ird C irc u it h a s re jec ted th e d isp a rity b e tw e e n f

a st-tra c k a n d n o n -f

a st-tra c k se n ten c in g , b e c a u se C o n g re ss h a s e x p re ss ly a p p ro v e d th e m . . . . S u c h a d is p a ri ty, th e re f o re , c o u ld n o t b e c o n s id e re d u n w a rr a n te d . . .

. ” T he D i stri ctC ou rtthen m ov ed from § 3 55 3(a) (6) t o the r estof the § 3 55 3(a) analy si s, n o tin g th a t it“ h a [ s] b e e n a sk e d to c o n sid e r th e sa m e a rg u m e n t o f th e f a st-tra c k d isp a rity6

underthe r emai ni ng . . . 3553( a) fac t or s . A nd I fi nd the ar gum entunper s uas i ve forthe r eas ons pr evi ous l ys t at ed and the r eas ons thatI w i l l expl ai n now . ” The cour tthen revi ew ed C olum na-R om ero’ s pers on al his t oryand ci rcum st ances i n li gh tof those factor s, concl udi ng that“a s ent ence w i thi n the gui del i nes i s s uffi ci entbutnotgr eat erthan n e c e s s a ry to a c c o m p lis h th e p e n a l g o a ls o f p u n is h m e n t.” W e se e n o p ro c e d u ra l er ro r in th is d e ter m in a tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt e x p licitly ac k n o w ledg ed “the U n it ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u idelines are n o lon g er m an d atory , b u t are advi s orypur s uantt o [ B ooker ]. ” It fo u n d n o u n w arran ted d ispa ri tyu n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a)(6), and then cons i der ed the r emai ni ng § 3553( a) fac t or s i n l i ghtof al l of the r el evant ev iden ce an d arg u m en ts be fo re it , inclu d ing C o lum n a-R o m ero ’s fa st- tr ac k arg u m en t. It r ecogni zed i t s author i tyt o i m pos e a s ent ence bel ow the advi s ed r ange, buti tdet erm i ned a s ent ence w i thi n t he G ui del i nes w as r eas onabl e and a dow nw ar d var i ance w as i nappr opr i at e. C ol um na- R om er o cont ends the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s t at ement s atthe se n ten c in g h e a rin g d o n o t ad e q u a telyd e m o n stra te th a t itu n d e rsto o d its a u th o rityto cons i derhi s fas t - tr ack a r gum enti n i t s § 3553( a) anal y s i s . W e di s agr ee. W e have r ecogni zed that“bec aus e di s tr i ctcourtj udges r enders ent enci ng deci s i ons or al l yand s pont aneous l yfr om the benc h aft erthe pr es ent at i on of num er ous ar gum ent s , w e do not expec tthem t o del i ver‘ a per fec torcompl et e s t at ementof al l of the s urr oundi ng l aw . ’ ” V ar gas , 477 F. 3d at101 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 0 n . 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )); s ee al

s o R i ta v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2468 ( 2007) ( “The se nt enci ng7

j udge s houl d s etfor th enough t o s at i s fythe appe l l at e courtthathe has cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng hi s ow n l egal deci s i onm aki ng author i ty . N onethel es s , w hen a j udge dec i des s i m pl yt o appl ythe G ui del i nes t o a part i cul arcas e, doi ng s o w i l l notnece s s ar i l yr equi r e l engthyexpl anat i on. ” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) . H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tm ade s uffi ci ent l ycl earthati thad cons i der ed C ol um na- R om er o’ s fas t - tr ack a r gum entw i th r es pectt o al l of the § 3553( a) fac t or s , but had found the ar gum entunper s uas i ve i n l i ghtof the evi dence befor e i t . T hi s w as a pr oper ex erc ise o f d iscreti o n u n d er B ooker , an d re su lted in a p ro c e d u ra llyre a so n a b le det erm i nat i on of C ol um na- R om er o’ s s ent ence . A c c o rd in g to C o lu m n a -R o m e ro , h o w e v e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e c e n t d e c isio n in K i m br ough v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t . 558 ( 2007) , cal l s i nt o ques t i on w hetherfas t - tr ack p ro g ra m s c a n n o t cr e a te “ u n w a rra n ted d isp a rities ” b e c a u se C o n g re ss h a s e x p licitly a p p ro v e d th e ir c re a tio n a n d sc h e m e o f im p lem e n tatio n . W e re c o g n ize th a t K i m br ough has pr om pt ed r econs i der at i on of the r ol e fa s t - tr ack pr ogr ams m aypl ayi n a s ent enci ng court ’ s § 3553( a) anal y s i s , and w hetherdi s par i t i es r es ul t i ng fr om the fa s t - tr ack s ent enci ng s c h e m e m a yn o w b e c o n s id e re d “ u n w a rr a n te d ” u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ). C om par e U ni t ed Stat es v. R odr í

guez , 5 2 7 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 9 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), w i th U nited S tates v. G om ezHerrer a , 5 2 3 F .3 d 5 5 4 , 5 6 2

– 6 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), and U n itedS ta tes v . V

eg a -C a stillo , 540 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8

– 3 9 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), r eh’ g en banc de ni ed , 5 4 8 F . 3 d 9 8 0 (11 th C ir . 2008) . B utw e do notr eac h t hati s s ue her e. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, i n pr ovi ng an8

“unw arr ant ed di s par i ty ” under§ 3553( a) ( 6) , C ol um na- R om er o bor e the bur den of putt i ng for th evi dence of otherdefe ndant s w i th par al l el ci r cumst ance s w ho have r ece i ved l ow er s e n te n c e s p u rs u a n t to a f a s t- tr a c k p ro g ra m . See Vargas , 4 7 7 F . 3 d at 10 0 . T h e re co rd does notr efl ects uch evi dence . C ol um na- R om er o has m ade ge ner al as s ert i ons r egar di ng the exi s t ence of fa s t - tr ack pr ogr ams i n otherdi s tr i ct s and the ava i l abi l i tyof l ow er se n ten c e s th ro u g h su c h p ro g ra m s. B u t h e h a s n o t id e n tifie d o th e r d e f e n d a n ts, w ith par al l el ci r cumst ance s and r ecor ds , w ho w er e el i gi bl e forand r ece i ved s uch l ow er s ent ence s . T hus , as the D i s tr i ctC our tfound, C ol um na- R om er o has notcarr i ed hi s bur den in s h o w in g a n “ u n w a rr a n te d d is p a ri ty” u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ). K i m br ough , even i f r el evant t o V ar gas , w oul d notal t erthi s det erm i nat i on. A s t o the r es tof the § 3553( a) anal y s i s , t he D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed C ol um na- R om er o’ s fas t - tr ack a r gum ent , and K i m br ough w o u ld n o t r e q u ir e th a t th e c o u rt f in d th is a rg u m e n t a n ym o re p e rs u a s iv e th a n it a lr e a d yh a s . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt u n d e rsto o d a n d e x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n p ro p e rlyin th is cas e, and di d notcomm i tpr ocedur al err ori n i m pos i ng C ol um na- R om er o’ s s ent ence . III . C ol um na- R om er o al s o cont ends that , i n l i ghtof Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 53 0 U. S. 466 ( 2000) , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s cons i der at i on of hi s pr i orconvi ct i on i n i t s s ent enci ng deci s i on under§ 1326( b) ( 2) vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s , as the pr i or c o n v i c t i o n wa s n e i th e rc h a r g e d i n th e i n d i c t me n tn o ra d mi t t e d a th i s g u i l typ l e a . As C ol um na- R om er o acknow l edges , and as w e al s o found i n V ar gas , this c h a llen g e isC o lu m n a -R o m e ro c o n c e d e s th is a u th o rityc o n tro ls, a n d o n lyra ise s th e c h a llen g e to 3 pr es erve i ti n t he eve ntthe Supr eme C our tw er e t o r ever s e A lm endar ez - Torr es . 9 f o r e c l o s e d b y A lm endar ez - Torr es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 2 3 5 (1 9 9 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 5 4 , 1 5 9

– 6 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 991 ( 2007) ; and U

ni t ed Stat es v. O r daz , 3 9 8 F .3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). See Vargas , 477 F. 3d at104–05. 3 I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e fi nd the s ent ence r eas onabl e and w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .